Legal Opinion · Dissent

Andrews Ex Rel. Andrews v. Haygood

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 12, 2008No. 57A07-2Published

1DissentJustice Hudson

Although I agree with the majority that “[Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. ] Ahlborn does not mandate a specific method for determining the medical expense portion of a plaintiff’s settlement,” the United States Supreme Court nevertheless did explicitly hold in Ahlborn that a State may not violate the anti-lien provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(18) and 1396p by requiring a Medicaid recipient to reimburse it out of settlement funds designated for purposes other than medical care. 547 U.S. 268, 284-85, 164 L. Ed. 2d 459, 474 (2006). The terms of the settlement at issue here…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States Trust Co. of NY v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. AhlbornSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  3. Bailey v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  4. RH Bouligny, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of Amer.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. Ezell v. Grace Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API